HPV Vaccine: Mandatory?

[SigKapSweetie]

In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use
recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of
consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a
separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private
pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the
Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their
daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

NVIC is the oldest and largest parent-led organization advocating reform of mass vaccination programs.

Notice that it's 'parent-led', not physician- or scientist-led. These are the same people who passionately believe that autism is caused by vaccinations. I'd suggest checking with the CDC and the FDA before believing anything that comes from a crackpot fringe group. I consulted a PharmD and an OB/GYN about this and was soundly chastised for even suggesting that the NVIC was a reliable source of scientific information.

Personally, I've yet to see anyone actually make the claim that the vaccine will encourage sexual activity, but I see a lot of people assuming that people will oppose it for that reason.

This comment was actually made by another poster in this thread.

One of my sisters that works in a pharmacy said that this vaccine isn't good because it's actually injecting HPV into your body (like the flu vaccine) and if you don't have the virus in your body, then you'll most likely get HPV anyways... or something like that.

Untrue.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by SigKapSweetie

NVIC is the oldest and largest parent-led organization advocating reform of mass vaccination programs.

Notice that it's 'parent-led', not physician- or scientist-led. These are the same people who passionately believe that autism is caused by vaccinations. I'd suggest checking with the CDC and the FDA before believing anything that comes from a crackpot fringe group. I consulted a PharmD and an OB/GYN about this and was soundly chastised for even suggesting that the NVIC was a reliable source of scientific information.

What part of the news release was incorrect?

[SigKapSweetie]

Originally Posted by blueangel

What part of the news release was incorrect?

Every part that isn't backed up by a reproducible, statistically significant scientific study published in a respectable journal. So, pretty much all of it.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by SigKapSweetie

NVIC is the oldest and largest parent-led organization advocating reform of mass vaccination programs.

Can you say "agenda"?

PM_Mama00, I hope that your sister that works in the pharmacy is a cashier or general store manager or something and not a pharmacist or a pharm tech, because that would be scary that she's giving out misinformation like that.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by kddani

Can you say "agenda"?

PM_Mama00, I hope that your sister that works in the pharmacy is a cashier or general store manager or something and not a pharmacist or a pharm tech, because that would be scary that she's giving out misinformation like that.

She's a tech. She's not out freely giving this info. We asked her about it and she just told us. I guess she's heard about it from her doc and her co-workers. Maybe I got part of it wrong. This vaccine just came out to the public, right? I'm not sure I'd feel ok with giving my child this when it hasn't been out for that long.

[UGAalum94]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I've been hearing "the Christian conservatives are all going to be against this because. . ."
and I haven't heard that kind of opposition. It seems to me that most parents will want to protect their daughters from cancer and aren't interested using fear to motivate their daughters to be chaste.

I understand that the vaccine has to be given before the onset of sexual activity to be effective, but I think the 9 year old end of the range just seems weirdly young to most of us.

Someone else earlier in the thread made the point that kids don't even usually know what they are being vaccinated against, so I suspect it would be pretty easy just to tell them it will keep them from getting a certain kind of cancer later without getting into HPV at that age at all.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by kddani

Can you say "agenda"?

PM_Mama00, I hope that your sister that works in the pharmacy is a cashier or general store manager or something and not a pharmacist or a pharm tech, because that would be scary that she's giving out misinformation like that.

Oh, absolutely! They definately have an agenda.. but doesn't Merck? The sale of the drug is expected to reach $1 billion dollars next year and could reach $3 billion per year. Merck has a lot riding on this vaccine. Don't forget, it's still smarting from all of the money it lost when Vioxx was pulled from the shelves.

The whole "seeding" of this vaccine was done brilliantly. When the company was close to FDA approval, it established a website "educating" the public of the connection between HPV and cancer. A consumer group has harshly criticized Merck for this, calling the website "deceptive" and "dishonest" and alleging that the site was only there to sell Gardasil.

The company then started bombarding the airwaves, magazines and newspapers with HPV "awareness." It then courted conservative political groups to try to ward off anticipated objections.

Merck has been doing some heavy duty lobbying among lawmakers as well, including courting the non-partisan group of female legislators, "Women in Government." For the past year, they've been bombarding the media with massive print and broadcast ads.

This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated to win over legislators and put lots of money in their pockets.

Aren't we jumping the gun on a mandate like this? Gardasil was only approved by the FDA in June of last year. Personally, I would like to take a "wait and see" attitude before rushing in and vaccinating the masses. We're only beginning to see the side effects of the vaccine, and the long term side effects are not known.. neither is how long the vaccine will act as a prophylactic aginst HPV.

Consider these facts:

-It will not fully protect everyone who receives the vaccine.

-There are more than 100 different types of HPV. Gardasil only protects against four types.

-Even if a woman is exposed to HPV, including one of the four types Gardasil protects against, there are no complications in the vast majority of women.

-It will not protect you from HPVs that you've already been exposed to.

-Women who have received the injections must still have yearly pap tests.

-Cervical cancer is already on the decline in the US. It's very treatable and there is usually a very good outcome when caught early (hence, PAP tests).

-Cervical cancer only accounts for less than 1 percent of all female cancers.

So... is it enough to run out and get your daughter vaccinated? Only you can decide. Oh wait.. you can't... if you live in Texas, the government has already decided for you.

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, I don't like the government deciding it for you either.

And I agree that the efforts the Merck put into lobbying for making the vaccine mandatory are a little bit creepy and intrusive too.

(I've go no problem with them generally promoting the vaccine and the link between HPV and cancer, but I draw the line at their lobbying states to compel people to purchase and use their product.)

If it turns out that the vaccine will do what Merck hopes that it will, it's a move forward in women's health, and I hope that girls get vaccinated.

[AGDee]

As soon as I heard about this vaccine I figured I would make sure my daughter got it before she "needs" it. Ideally, I'd prefer to wait for a couple years to see how it pans out long term though. I can confidently say she's not having sex yet because she's very open with me right now about that stuff.

However, I am opposed to the government requiring that she have it to attend school. I agree that it makes sense with highly infectious diseases such as the MMR, etc., but I think this one should be a parent's decision, not the government's. It's a matter of principle, not related to this particular vaccine.

If it's going to cost parents up to $900 to get the series, then that brings up a whole different problem because that's a hefty chunk of change for the government to require us to pay. Only the rich and well insured get to go to school then? It seems too similar to other government requirements.. they put the requirements in place, but don't fund it.

[Drolefille]

Regarding the cost. Our health dept. is offering the shots for 21 dollars total. 7 dollars per shot. I cannot imagine that a city of 100,000 is offering it at a ridiculous discount. Don't go to your doctor for vaccinations if you're going to have to pay for them out of pocket. My Dr. recommended me to the health dept. for my meningitis vaccine so I wouldnt' pay crazy amounts for it.

Oh and don't go to biased websites for your information either... talk to your doctor about it.

[AchtungBaby80]

I don't think I agree with the HPV vaccination being mandatory to attend school, but on the other hand, I think that when people are told it's "optional" they'll think it's just not something they should bother with. Even with all the attention this shot has been getting lately, a lot women I know still think it's no big deal--it's just like everything else, they think they won't get HPV because they don't "sleep around" or "they're careful." Well, guess what...HPV is very, very common. Actually getting cervical cancer from an HPV infection is rare, yes, but how do they know they won't be in that small but unlucky percentage? They don't. And you don't actually have to have sex sex with someone to contract HPV, so they may think they're "safe" when they're actually not. It really sucks that Gardisil is so damn expensive, because obviously the cost is going to deter a lot of people who can't afford it or don't have insurance, and that's really unfortunate. This is a chance to possibly avoid getting cancer, for crying out loud, not to mention all the unpleasant stuff that goes along with treating problems caused by HPV. It ain't a picnic, believe me. I honestly feel that the decision on whether or not to get the vaccine should be left up to the parents and/or young ladies themselves instead of mandated by the government, but I also wish there was a way to impress on people just how important this is so they'll take it seriously.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Oh and don't go to biased websites for your information either... talk to your doctor about it.

And doctors aren't biased? Have you seen the junkets and incentives given to doctors by the drug companies?

The best thing to do is research for yourself and to read, read, read and then read some more.

[BigRedBeta]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Consider these facts:

-It will not fully protect everyone who receives the vaccine.

-There are more than 100 different types of HPV. Gardasil only protects against four types.

-Even if a woman is exposed to HPV, including one of the four types Gardasil protects against, there are no complications in the vast majority of women.

-It will not protect you from HPVs that you've already been exposed to.

-Women who have received the injections must still have yearly pap tests.

-Cervical cancer is already on the decline in the US. It's very treatable and there is usually a very good outcome when caught early (hence, PAP tests).

-Cervical cancer only accounts for less than 1 percent of all female cancers.

So... is it enough to run out and get your daughter vaccinated? Only you can decide. Oh wait.. you can't... if you live in Texas, the government has already decided for you.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Oh and don't go to biased websites for your information either... talk to your doctor about it.

Best statement so far made on this thread.

Last I read, the texas requirement was due to many pediatricians not giving the injection due to the costs they incur by giving it, storing it, etc. While insurance companies are paying for it, doctors are only receiving $5-10 more than the cost of the vaccine to them (ie insurance is paying 130$ but the injection costs the doctor $125 to purchase).

As for BlueAngels assertions

1)Yes, technically it won't cover everyone who receives it. That's a fact of medicine, not a reason to not get vaccinated. It does "reduce the risk" to such a degree that the benefits far outweigh the risks of getting the injection. That's the aim. Further, there's this thing called "herd immunity". Get enough people vaccinated so that infection cannot spread rapidly, and you end up nearly eradicating the disease. Typically, depending on the disease, herd immunity starts to take effect when between 75-90% of the population has been vaccinated. The public health benefits of required vaccination cannot be ignored.

2)It only protects against 4 types because those 4 types are responsible for the overwhelming majority of illness and cancer. 16 and 18 are responsible for nearly 90% of invasive cervical cancers, and some studies have found them in as many as 80% of non-invasive cancers as well. If you have to pick a strategy for preventing a cancer with a vaccine it only makes sense to pick the serotypes most commonly responsible particularly when they are THAT involved. It's just like with newborn screening for metabolic disorders, they only check for the 6 most common types of Cystic Fibrosis mutations, because those 6 mutations account for more than 90% of all CF cases. It's simply not cost-effective to look for or create immunity to every possible form of a disease.

3)I'd consider exposure to one of the serotypes Gardisil protects against to be significant, especially when one of the complications is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide.

[AKA_Monet]

Girls and young women have generally under the age of 26 have rapidly replacing cervical cells.

HPV rapidly infects cells that are constantly dividing. Cervical cells generally do not divide that much as a woman ages.

The thing about HPV is that it's a gateway virus for other more virulent STI's, such as Herpes and HIV.

HPV vaccination may only cover 4-5 strains but it is a first line of defense for those girls and young women to never develop a horrific illness starting in their 30's or 40's or later.

Even though cervical cancer rates are not as high as breast cancer rates, the treatment efficacy is poor with the current chemotherapeutics.

The issue is that determined horny kids will have sex. And more than likely without any condoms or birth control pills...

What is more unfortunate is the number of poor and minority girls and women who have barely any control of their bodies due to piss poor livelihoods and barely concern for their future.

So somehow, maybe this would be safer for these kinds of women or it is a massive sterilization mechanism...

Only time will tell.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Girls and young women have generally under the age of 26 have rapidly replacing cervical cells.

HPV rapidly infects cells that are constantly dividing. Cervical cells generally do not divide that much as a woman ages.

The thing about HPV is that it's a gateway virus for other more virulent STI's, such as Herpes and HIV.

HPV vaccination may only cover 4-5 strains but it is a first line of defense for those girls and young women to never develop a horrific illness starting in their 30's or 40's or later.

Even though cervical cancer rates are not as high as breast cancer rates, the treatment efficacy is poor with the current chemotherapeutics.

The issue is that determined horny kids will have sex. And more than likely without any condoms or birth control pills...

What is more unfortunate is the number of poor and minority girls and women who have barely any control of their bodies due to piss poor livelihoods and barely concern for their future.

So somehow, maybe this would be safer for these kinds of women or it is a massive sterilization mechanism...

Only time will tell.

Yep. For those of you who are wondering why they're not recommending the vaccine for women over 26, there are some reasons for that...

The younger women are, the more likely they are to have unprotected sex.

Unprotected sex is the leading cause of HPV.

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.

So, you see the connection? Older women just don't get HPV at the same rate as younger (and poorer) girls/women. And, as with most cancers, the younger you are, the more serious/advanced your cancer is likely to be.

Regarding the comments about cervical cancer being easy to treat - it's not. As AKA Monet said, cervical cancer does not have the same targeted cancer treatments available as in, say, breast cancer. Chemotherapy is literally poisoning the body...it has massive consequences along with the benefits, especially for women of reproductive age. Imagine your 18 or 19-year old daughter getting a hysterectomy or becoming infertile as a result of getting cervical cancer. She may live, but she will have lost a big part of what she may have wanted for her life.

As someone who used to work with a major biotech company that developed cancer treatments, I would encourage parents to seriously consider the vaccine. But, I think Texas has overstepped by mandating the vaccination. The only reason i say this is because the vaccine was only approved very recently. Merck will continue to do research on the vaccine for several years, will track side effects/safety over time, and will likely continue to announce data/side-effects/benefits, etc. as they come up. I do not think it's a good idea to mandate this vaccine for every girl in the state until more time has gone by.

Regarding the educational Web site someone mentioned here, those are quite common. The reason they exist is because the FDA heavily regulates marketing to consumers...there are a lot of rules about how they can advertise. But, one of the other reasons these Web sites and educational campaigns exist is because often these drugs are treating complicated disorders/diseases that can't be explained in a 30-second commercial. Also, doctors do not always know about all the newer treatments, so most cancer centers/organizations/companies will tell you that it's a good idea to keep yourself informed so that you can have a dialogue with your doctor and ask questions, not just wait for him/her to tell you what to do. Contrary to what many people believe, my experience has been that biotech and pharma companies generally work very hard to ensure the safety of their treatments and to make sure their products reach the people they will help. The "cover ups" that make the news are only half of the story and they're certainly the exception more than the rule.